Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Dalibor Topic wrote on Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 08:20:42PM CEST: > >>It would be nice if libtool provided a way to either map a short dynamic >>library name to a full name (say, something -> libsomething.so) or >>offered an autoconfish way to get the platform-specifc shared library >>prefix, like it does for the suffix. >> >>I've seen that a similar problem occured for GNU readline on cygwin[1], >>and they went for a platform-specific set of properties in the >>makefiles. I guess it would be more efficient if libtool provided a >>central API for that, rather than to see projects reinventing the wheel. > > > OK. I see the general idea as useful.
OK, so I am not totally off base, here. :) > There's a couple of connected questions that have not been considered > yet, though. IOW: the problem space is not clear yet: > > Can we assume that each particular system has only one answer? that's a tricky question: some operating environments (say win32) can host multiple toolchains (say MSVC, cygwin & mingw32) with different conventions wrt to the prefix choice (none, cyg & lib, I think). I think it is safe to assume that within a toolchain the answer is clear. I do not know how that works wrt to cross-toolchain-interperability, though. > Can libtool assume that all previously installed libraries obey this > answer, when it goes searching for deplibs? Whatever libtool does now wrt to prefixes, seems to work well enough. Does it search for multiple, different prefixes atm? > For example, Peter Ekberg's recent proposed patches do not prefix `lib' > to libraries created with MSVC (which is similar to how other libs look > on this system). Now, ideally the user might want to be able to mix > code created by this compiler with code created by GCC. However, > mingw/gcc has a different naming scheme. Yeah. How does lt_dlopen(ext) deal with that atm? > So, can we settle on one scheme per system, i.e., have a mapping > system -> libname_spec > where everyone would be happy with? > > Another important question: are you even talking about libname_spec or > about soname_spec? You do know that the two are not so easily mixable > on all systems (e.g., AIX)? OK. I *think* I am talking about soname_spec, looking at libtool.m4. At least in Cygwin's case. Looking at libtool.m4, the difference is not very clear to me, as pw32 changes the prefix to libname_spec. :( >>It also seems that ltdl.c uses the "lib" prefix specifically in one case >>[2] , where it may or may not make sense to use a hypothetical >>LTDL_SHLIB_PRE. > > > ACK. This is a bug. Added to TODO list in Gary's wiki. Thanks! cheers, dalibor topic _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
